New Equipment on the way

[ampsonic]

Well, round 1 of my new equipment is on the way, I'm getting a Panasonic Lumix GH1, which is a micro 4/3 camera that has tremendous video capability. Also on the way is 2 16GB class 6 SDHC cards, an extra battery, a Zoom H4N audio recorder, and a boom stand for the recorder.

Round two will include a 2nd more traditional camera, wireless mic kit, shotgun mic, and a mount for the Lumix.

Anyone use the Azden WLX-Pro with an XLR to 3.5mm adapter to use other mics with the transmitter?

[HankCastello]

That looks like the newer version of the wms-pro which I've used for years.  Never tried it with a different mic, but so long as the mic doesn't need phantom power, etc., I don't see any problems. 

I've been tempted on the 12MP dlsr cameras, but I think I'll hold out for 15MP, after all their main use is for stills.  Still, I envy you, especially whenever I have to use my 8MP Nikon non-dslr!

[DavidPartington]

I'll be very interested to hear your thoughts on the GH1 after the initial honeymoon period is over and you figured out the good and bad points.   I've looked at the GH1 a couple of times, but never taken the plunge.   It sure would be nice to have a DSLR that does video as well as stills.  I currently drag my Nikon D700 + 24-70 f2.8 around with me to take DVD cover shots (although I still sometimes end up frame grabbing fro video instead).

My main concern with the GH1 has always been what happens in longer shoots (i.e. the sensor getting warmer) and how the codec (AVCHD) handles movement compared to the codec in the HMC camcorders.

So..... make sure you post some feedback on it.....

[BillGrant]

Hank,
MP has nothing to do with anything. You know that right? 12 vs 15 is a rediculous argument. It's about the size of the processor and how many MP per the size. a 12 MP image will look better on the same size chip than a 15MP. You understand the more MP they shove into the same space causes a degredation in picture. That's why HD cameras do not do as well in low light. Same size chip, more MP.
Bill

[HankCastello]

Last month, Popular Photography came down pretty hard on the latest round of 12MP cams merely for their lack of pixels relative to the 15+ cameras.  I don't recall reading anything about sensor size in that article, though of course it makes a world of difference.  This looks like a great camera, but I've been wanting to get a printer capable of 16x20 prints and not so sure these can hack it.

[DavidPartington]

8MP & 12 MP can easily make 16x20 prints, but at this size the 'sensor size' makes a lot of difference.   I would (and have) made 16x20 and large prints from 8MP DSLR (which look awesome), but would not even think about making that size print from an 8MP camera built in to a phone.    A P&S camera falls somewhere in the middle and it really comes down to the sensor's performance in each individual brand/model.   All MPs are not the same

Last year I sold my Canon 1Ds mkII (16.7MP full frame) and went to a Nikon D700 (12MP full frame).  You really have to be pixel peeping to see any difference between them and on large prints the difference between 12MP and 16.7MP is negligible.  At normal viewing distance you can't tell them apart.

[BillGrant]

Pixel count is a marketing tool. "popular" photography has to speak in language that its readers can understand. The reason why the HV20 has a degraded picture is you are shoving the same number of MP into a smaller sensor. I promise.
Bill

[HankCastello]

I'm busy with editing, so was going to just let all this go, but now I can't because I fear that someone is going to read this and buy an 8MP camera thinking it can do 16x20 photo prints and unless you carefully crop in-camera and don't mind showing some pixels, it just simply cannot.

You need the megapixels to do the job.  A large sensor will help in low light conditions, but it is the pixels that make up the resolution.

Here is a chart showing what I mean (Thanks to design215.com)


The numbers in the corners represent the number of megapixels.  The bordering numbers represent the print size in inches.

[added] (Had to catch the phone, so was interrupted here..) I'll grant that other factors like lens quality, sharpening algorithms and color are more important, but your resolution is still tied to pixel numbers.

[DavidPartington]

Hank, you are both right and wrong at the same time.    Much of depends on the quality of the pixels too... even if that sounds strange.

I have some large (A3+) prints taken from a 4MP camera that look pretty good, but the same picture taken using a 4MP camera phone would be a disaster.  They have the same pixel count, so should be the same right?  Wrong. The quality of the output from the camera phone is a disaster.  The image is no longer clearly defined because there is too much noise.

You CAN get much bigger pictures from smaller MP counts provided the quality of the pixels is high - and by that I mean clearly defined and low noise.  It's perfectly possible to take well defined low noise pictures and using computers (either upscaling or allowing the printer driver to upscale) produce very good results indeed.  Of course, the detail will never be as good as the 60MP medium format backs can do, but the results are stunning all the same.  Much of it depends on how many pixels per inch (PPI rather than DPI) you are willing to throw at the printer drives.  Don't confuse DPI and PPI because inkjet printers lay down multiple dots per pixel, hence 4800dpi is not 4800 pixels per inch, rather it's 4800 dots of ink.

Pop over to http://www.fredmiranda.com and ask how big people print with various sizes of sensors and MP counts.  You may be amazed at what some people are achieving. 

I had a pair of Leica M8s for a while and the ability of that little camera to produce stunning images on 60" prints was simply unbelievable.

[HankCastello]

Much of depends on the quality of the pixels

I think this conversation needs to be taken in context also.  This thread is not about cell phone photos.  It's not even about cheap digital cameras.  I think we can agree that Panasonic, Canon and Nikon are all top quality cameras and therefore the quality issue does not apply here.  Doesn't that pretty much leave us with megapixels as one of the determining factors, especially when we're talking about maximum print size?

[ampsonic]

A good read by the loved and hated Ken Rockwell on the subject:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

One needs at least a doubling of linear resolution or film size to make an obvious improvement. This is the same as quadrupling the megapixels. A simple doubling of megapixels, even if all else remained the same, is very subtle. The factors that matter, like color and sharpening algorithms, are far more significant.

The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a single number by which something's goodness can be judged.

Unfortunately, it's all a myth because the number of megapixels (MP) a camera has has very little to do with how the image looks. Even worse, plenty of lower MP cameras can make better images than poorer cameras with more MP.

[DavidPartington]

Much of depends on the quality of the pixels

I think this conversation needs to be taken in context also.  This thread is not about cell phone photos.  It's not even about cheap digital cameras.  I think we can agree that Panasonic, Canon and Nikon are all top quality cameras and therefore the quality issue does not apply here.  Doesn't that pretty much leave us with megapixels as one of the determining factors, especially when we're talking about maximum print size?

Actually, no.  Many of the P&S cameras are really not that good, especially the higher MP count models.  They are a marketing tool. Most people on the high street think that more MP must be better, so that is what they shop for, but there is a reason the Canon G10 was 15MP and the G11 is only 10MP.  Canon got slated for poor picture quality on the higher MP model so the next model fixed their mistake.  There really is a limit to how much you can squeeze in to a given sensor area. 

I used the camera phones as a extreme, but P&S cameras are somewhere between DSLRs and camera phones.  There are people who believe that 12MP on full frame DSLR is good enough for anything you want to do.  It certainly out-resolves 35mm film by a long way.  But compare a 12MP DSLR (e.g. Nikon D700 or D3s) with a P&S of 15MP and you will instantly see the DSLR (with the large sensor but less MP) beats the tiny sensor on the P&S, even though the P&S has more MP.  This is even more true in lower light settings.   Try getting a good ISO 3200 shot on a P&S, then compare that to ISO 3200 on (say) a Nikon D3s with fewer megapixels. The D3s can still be blown to 16x24 where as you wouldn't want to blow the P&S past a 5x7.

[HankCastello]

All well and good, but the original topic wasn't concerning point and shoots.  It was about top-end dslr's.  As for 35mm film not having that great a resolution, I can recall the days when we considered it good enough for newsprint only - and that was back when you could see the obvious dot makup of newspaper photos.  We'd push its ISO (ASA back then, if I recall correctly) to the limit for football game shots with Dektol developer, but go to Microdol-X for making 4x5's.

I have my Rolleiflex for large, analog style photos, my Pentax 35mm hasn't seen use in a decade.

What I AM interested in is whether the 12MP of this Panasonic dslr is up to anywhere near par with the Canon 5d Mk II 21 MP when it comes to large prints (i.e.: 16x20 plus)?

[DavidPartington]

What I AM interested in is whether the 12MP of this Panasonic dslr is up to anywhere near par with the Canon 5d Mk II 21 MP when it comes to large prints (i.e.: 16x20 plus)?

Well, I can answer that one for you.   NO.   If you are looking for large prints, comparing the 5D2 to the GH1 is going to reveal that the 5D2 is better.

[HankCastello]

Darn! There goes a few grand!